Talk about your movie-plot threats:
Wissahickon is the most recent district to mandate see-through backpacks, joining several other area suburban districts and private schools as they look to avert tragedies like the 1999 gun killings at Columbine and last December’s gunshot suicide by a student inside Montgomery County’s Springfield Township High School.
Yeah, like that’s going to help.
Hmm • July 27, 2007 2:57 PM
See-through skulls: http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Vue-Brain
Anonymoose • July 27, 2007 2:58 PM
I worked at a large beer-related amusement park in southern Virginia summer of 2002 — that summer they switched to requiring employees to only use clear or mesh bags to bring things into or out of the park.
It was purportedly for safety, but also to prevent employees taking things out of the park hidden inside bags — it did make getting through the security checkpoint that much easier.
(Also notable, that I was on the list that permitted me to carry my own knives around the park, but that clearance is another story… along with the “Code Purple” weather)
Jack Grey • July 27, 2007 2:59 PM
Hm. It could work, as long as everyone had to wear see-through clothes, too. Right? Right? Oh, quit sniggering.
Brandioch Conner • July 27, 2007 3:03 PM
“We can’t control everything,” Hayes said. “We all recognize that if a kid or an adult is intent on doing something, there’s not a lot we can do about it. But we are hoping that at least during the school day, this will make kids think twice about doing something inappropriate.”
Security theatre at its best.
What, exactly, is this supposed to stop? And how is it supposed to stop it?
If it isn’t supposed to stop anything, then why do it?
Roy • July 27, 2007 3:11 PM
They will need to require see-through textbooks, notebooks, and laptops, otherwise these could contain guns, knives, or bombs.
By the way, what restrictions are being imposed on the faculty and staff? Since it is possible an adult might smuggle in weapons for the students to use, we must do everything possible to prevent this.
Cost is no object if we save a single life in the next hundred years, right?
markm • July 27, 2007 3:24 PM
“I see a hole in their security.”
The biggest hole is this: if someone is planning to shoot up the school, they don’t have to smuggle guns past the security checkpoint. They just hit it first. I’ve never seen school security that was prepared to handle anything worse than a 3rd grader with sharp scissors.
Tesla • July 27, 2007 3:25 PM
“We can’t control everything,” Hayes said. “We all recognize that if a kid or an adult is intent on doing something, there’s not a lot we can do about it. But we are hoping that at least during the school day, this will make kids think twice about doing something inappropriate.”
It seems to me that the kids behind all of the school shootings we’ve seen thus far thought a great deal more than “twice” about their plans before executing them.
Chris S • July 27, 2007 3:29 PM
“But we are hoping that at least during the school day”
It has the appearance of attempting to move people who are “doing something” out of the school and into the community. This will at least improve the school’s image. Less clear is whether or not it will make a big difference to overall safety for all students at all times.
Jim • July 27, 2007 3:35 PM
Kids pack for school like the parents pack for a trip.
“Sometimes you leave your house to go on vacation. And you gotta take some of your stuff with you. Gotta take about two big suitcases full of stuff, when you go on vacation. You gotta take a smaller version of your house. It’s the second version of your stuff. And you’re gonna fly all the way to Honolulu. Gonna go across the continent, across half an ocean to Honolulu. You get down to the hotel room in Honolulu and you open up your suitcase and you put away all your stuff. “Here’s a place here, put a little bit of stuff there, put some stuff here, put some stuff–you put your stuff there, I’ll put some stuff–here’s another place for stuff, look at this, I’ll put some stuff here…” And even though you’re far away from home, you start to get used to it, you start to feel okay, because after all, you do have some of your stuff with you.” George Carlin
http://www.writers-free-reference.com/funny/story085.htm
Tim R • July 27, 2007 3:42 PM
It’s times like this that make me remember what my father used to tell me when I was a kid. “Locks are for keeping the honest people out.”
I imagine it probably took some enterprising youth about three seconds to realize that, in a transparent backpack, you can fit almost anything between two books.
Brandioch Conner • July 27, 2007 4:01 PM
@Tim R
“I imagine it probably took some enterprising youth about three seconds to realize that, in a transparent backpack, you can fit almost anything between two books.”
Or in a brown paper sack with a piece of cardboard taped to the inside to change the outline.
The problem isn’t the weapons. The problem is the people who want to bring the weapons to school. Unless they focus on that problem, none of this security theatre will do anything.
Just save time. Issue two sets of books to every kid. One set stays at home, one set stays at school. Pens and pencils are issued by the school. You can only bring one spiral bound notebook into or out of school. There. Problem solved. Sure it will require a change of curriculum, but isn’t it worth it to protect the children?
Then just setup metal detectors at each entrance/exit and you’re golden.
Jeff • July 27, 2007 4:02 PM
Umm Yeah so in winter as kids wear big bulky coats and gloves and sweaters and things. We will sure be glad we forced them all to have clear book bags. What about clear gymbags for gym clothes, why couldn;t a gun plus ammo be wrapped up in gym clothes in the bag. Oh wait we have to play games in school where everyone wins now and is not to physically exerting. So they don’t need to sweat now days.
Geoff Lane • July 27, 2007 4:11 PM
The school must surely also ban the teachers from carrying briefcases?
After all, teachers are at least as likely to go doolally tap and start shooting students from the clock tower…
Roxanne • July 27, 2007 4:14 PM
Retail establishments have been requiring this of employees since at least 1982 and probably earlier. We were issued mesh bags upon hiring, and that was all we could use as a purse. It was suggested that we leave all of our personal belongings in our vehicles. Jackets were subject to search. The reason for this was stated as discouraging employee shoplifting.
Given the state of the average high school, the only real surprise is that this has taken so long to be enacted. I have to think they’re trying to discourage things like drinking and smoking as well as violence.
The only problem I see with this, is that the average student backpack weighs about fifty pounds with all of those schoolbooks aboard, and rolling ones are most popular.
Has anyone alerted backpack manufacturers to this requirement?
John Ridley • July 27, 2007 4:24 PM
The logical end game here was predicted by Heinlein’s The Puppet Masters. Clearly, everyone needs to be naked.
dragonfrog • July 27, 2007 4:43 PM
Remember kids: ‘Banning cloth backpacks also doesn’t unduly invade his privacy because “you shouldn’t have to be hiding something in school anyway,” Corliss said.’
That’s right – because high school kids are never embarassed about anything they might have to carry around.
stenboj • July 27, 2007 5:23 PM
If students want to protest this stupidity, I suggest making up labels that say “this object does not contain a weapon”, with mild adhesive on one side so it can be removed from school property (like books) without damage. Then stick one on every object in a see-through backpack that is large enough to contain a weapon, or could contain one if hollowed out.
It is, of course, equivalent to marching with a picket sign, but is clearly not harmful. It involves introducing no contraband, simulating no weapons, and breaking no rules – unless one is instituted specifically to prevent that labeling. If such a rule is announced, take it to the papers.
Should make a pretty good news photo even before any administrative reaction.
Joseph • July 27, 2007 5:39 PM
“Just save time. Issue two sets of books to every kid.”
Yeah, because it is so cheap to issue books. Most public schools can’t even afford ONE book per student right now. A five dollar clear backpack vs. $200 in books isn’t a hard choice for a policymaker that has financial accountability.
Hey hey • July 27, 2007 6:14 PM
I admit that I didn’t RTFA, but:
It seems to me that the benefit of a clear backpack would be to prevent students from easily bringing in their cellphones (complete with mosquito ring tone) and such into the classrooms. It has already been pointed out that getting something into the school with a cloth backpack (which is apparently allowed) and storing it in a locker isn’t a difficult thing to do, and the really determined will do whatever they set out to do, but it would probably at least cut down (albeit not completely remove) the number of students bringing banned paraphernalia to and between classes.
Furthermore, as far as bringing up Columbine and such as an example, I think that is the wrong approach. Kids like those seem to thoroughly think through their plans and the school is already at a disadvantage in that they are not set up to defend against that sort of thing (and I don’t think there really is a good way to do so. The offense is always at an advantage, and schools were never meant to be impenetrable fortresses.) HOWEVER, reducing the number of guns and knives from being kept by students in their backpack throughout the day cuts down on the chances of an act-of-passion. If the kids don’t have easy access to a knife (assuming that they don’t hide them in books and such, which some will, but more will probably just forgo carrying knives in their backpack), they can’t use them in a regrettable act of rage. The kids that plot these things out will probably still succeed, but I would argue that the latter occurs a lot less often than the former.
Brandioch Conner • July 27, 2007 6:30 PM
@Joseph
“Yeah, because it is so cheap to issue books. Most public schools can’t even afford ONE book per student right now. A five dollar clear backpack vs. $200 in books isn’t a hard choice for a policymaker that has financial accountability.”
That was the point.
Instead of dealing with the actual problem, the administration does what is easy for them to do.
And requiring $20 net backpacks is pretty easy to do. It costs them nothing. It doesn’t do a thing to improve security. No one is saying that having net backpacks will stop a student from shooting other students. No one is saying it would even save a single student’s life then.
Addressing the real problem will take too much of their time and money.
So we’ll just settle for these theatrics and hope that the the odds continue to favour us.
If a shooting should occur there, well, we did require net backpacks. They should have worked. They worked at all those schools that haven’t had a shooting yet where they required them.
jmr • July 27, 2007 6:58 PM
@Hey hey,
Yeah, because cell phones and knives are too big to fit in pockets.
jmr
Andrew • July 27, 2007 8:59 PM
As our schools start to resemble prisons, can our workplaces be far behind?
JackG't • July 27, 2007 10:09 PM
To have any privacy, a student will need packable compartments within the pack. Most of them aren’t transparent. If there’s not a rule on such compartments now, I suppose there will be.
Careful, kids. That jockstrap or thong may look like a garrote or a sling.
A law enforcement officer in Georgia (USA) used his son to assist him in demonstrations at safety-information meetings. The boy would load up all the weaponry he could in a pair of loose-fitting cargo pants, then whip it all out for attendees. He hid an amazing collection of weaponry, including a long gun. What’s next, transparent pants?
jay • July 27, 2007 10:28 PM
In Sri Lanka we did this during 1997 when the LTTE terrorist threatened to blast popular schools in Colombo.
utnapistim • July 28, 2007 3:51 AM
@Hey Hey wrote:
HOWEVER, reducing the number of guns and knives from being kept by students in their backpack throughout the day cuts down on the chances of an act-of-passion. If the kids don’t have easy access to a knife (assuming that they don’t hide them in books and such, which some will, but more will probably just forgo carrying knives in their backpack), they can’t use them in a regrettable act of rage.
The moment you have kids solving their issues with knives and guns for “acts of passion”, your problem is not solved through a transparent bag, nor will you solve it by dealing with anything else but what’s causing the problem.
This is just covering things up and hoping they go away.
The kids still can bring weapons with them inside the school and if they really want to use one, it won’t matter if they take them from a non-transparent schoolbag or from a locker down the hall.
Any kid determined enough to “solve his anger problem” with a gun won’t care he has to go 100 metres more to get it instead of just reaching into his bag.
This has nothing to do with security and all to do with privacy and again, it’s the innocent ones that suffer from it.
Stefan Wagner • July 28, 2007 6:22 AM
The main goal of this requirement might be an educational:
Learn, when to stop thinking.
The real theater is “logical reasoning is teached in schools”, and the security theater is the real lesson to learn, repeated every day.
They forgot to ban liquids.
Rekres • July 28, 2007 7:24 AM
Simple way to bypass. Use a ‘see-through’ packback, but then line it with black cloth, newspapers, or just about anything else opaque.
I recall a time once long ago…. “Innocent until proven guilty”
Dave • July 28, 2007 10:06 AM
So would it be okay for young ladies to carry tampons in opaque boxes clearly marked ‘TAMPONS’ or do the rules demand that they be kept loose?
I say you shouldn’t be hiding the fact blood is coming out your vagina in school anyway.
Any amount of humiliation is acceptable if it creates the impression bureaucrats are doing something.
An observer • July 28, 2007 12:29 PM
None of the school shootings that I can remember reading about involved a student carrying a weapon arround all day. The perps came in and started shooting. The most they needed was some minimal concealment (if that) getting in the door, then they let the cat out of the bag. The exception might be that kid in Arkansas who had an accomplice set off a fire alarm so he could pick off people from a nearby hill. No restrictions within the school building would have stopped him.
If this helps with anything it might help prevent (or reduce the severity of) those incedents that are too minor to get media attention. Incedents where a single student is stabbed or shot. I doubt it would help that much.
In my children’s schools hats and backpacks are banned durring the day. I can’t say it has made much difference. Fists and taunts can still do a lot of damage.
Anonymous • July 28, 2007 9:20 PM
I work in law enforcement with schools. This will not work. Someone trying to sneak in a weapon needs only a pen knife and a good thick book. What works is teaching students to be watchful and report dangerous behaviors immediately. Also, teachers are a great source of security because they know their kids and when something is “not right” about them (i.e., Virginia Tech). If only the leaders would listen to them.
Jack C Lipton • July 29, 2007 8:43 AM
@John Ridley:
“The logical end game here was predicted by Heinlein’s The Puppet Masters. Clearly, everyone needs to be naked.”
This has already been experimented with, at least in fiction.
Note that the link I’ve provided is NOT SAFE FOR WORK.
Mark • July 29, 2007 12:58 PM
@Tim R
“I imagine it probably took some enterprising youth about three seconds to realize that, in a transparent backpack, you can fit almost anything between two books.”
Or even inside a book. Smuggling objects, including weapons, inside a book isn’t exactly original.
mjo • July 29, 2007 6:50 PM
For what it’s worth, they’ve been doing this in Baltimore for at least 10 years. It doesn’t work, of course.
First of all, people cheerfully bring their drugs and weapons to school in the see-through backpacks. Nobody bothers to look through them, as it’s impossible to tell what’s in the backpack anyway.
Second, to which someone alluded above, you are necessarily allowed to put opaque items inside the see-through backpack. You can literally place an opaque backpack inside the mesh one and get away with it.
This never worried any of us much, though, because even at 11-18 years old we could recognize that the mesh backpacks were solving the wrong problem.
Peter • July 30, 2007 3:46 AM
“Oh My God! Won’t somebody think of the CHILDREN!”
bob • July 30, 2007 6:59 AM
“…avert tragedies like the 1999 gun killings at Columbine…”
Dont y’all realize this will save just shitloads of lives?? If you are killed with something other than a gun (like a knife, car or bomb) you get to resurrect as soon as you walk back to your body from the graveyard just like in a video game.
markm • July 30, 2007 7:34 AM
Jay: “In Sri Lanka we did this during 1997 when the LTTE terrorist threatened to blast popular schools in Colombo.”
And who was checking the backpacks? I suspect that in Sri Lanka, it would have been several soldiers, armed with assault rifles, and some of them in cover so they couldn’t be mowed down all at once if surprised by a terrorist group approaching the checkpoint. In American schools, it will be a teacher, or at best a single cop, who may or may not be armed with a pistol. It’s not enough. Any kid intent on shooting up the school would have the advantage of surprise, and probably also pack a long gun for better firepower.
guvn'r • July 30, 2007 9:21 AM
@Joseph, most importantly the cost of the books is paid by the district (taxpayers), the backpacks are paid for by students or their families. Follow the money.
from the base article “Districts have the legal right to impose safety restrictions on students, experts say.” More than that, they have a legal obligation to exercise prudent care, if the experts say clear backpacks are appropriate the district would be rightly criticized for not heeding that advice. And the experts did, the base article makes it clear that a study group chaired by the DA recommended this in response to the recent history of school violence.
This is a symptom, not the cause. Why did the district action draw so much reaction but not the recommendations produced by the DA’s committee?
DavidTC • July 30, 2007 11:19 AM
Well, there’s something that absolutely no school appears to have realized, and it’s that at least 50%, maybe more, of school shooting are multiple people.
And even pretending that these ‘security checkpoints’ could stop armed students shooting their way past, which they cannot, it would be trivial for one student to open an emergency exit for another student who’s carrying a huge box of guns.
Hell, the first student wouldn’t even have to be a knowing accomplice. Maybe he thinks he’s helping smuggle in drugs, or a student who’s late to school but is trying to sneak past the front office, or a student who snuck out for a smoke. Or maybe he’s just is walking by and hears someone pounding on the door.
So he opens it and then gets greeted by someone holding a shotgun.
Solution: Weld all emergency exits shut. They’re dangerous anyway…people can set off the fire alarms and shoot people who run out of the school, and, as was pointed out, no school security can help that.
Security theatre is much more important than actual physical safety, anyway.
Andy • July 30, 2007 11:41 AM
Perhaps there would be less shootings if there were fewer guns? Just a thought…
derf • July 30, 2007 11:52 AM
1) Take a picture of standard books in the see-through bag
2) Print pictures on photo paper
3) Tape pictures to inside of backpack
4) Insert whatever contraband you wish
Brandioch Conner • July 30, 2007 11:59 AM
@Andy
“Perhaps there would be less shootings if there were fewer guns? Just a thought…”
About 99% of all the guns sold are NOT used in the commission of a crime.
So, we could remove 99% of the guns and still not have any reduction in school shootings.
Anonymous • July 30, 2007 4:02 PM
Is this about safety or about teaching students to submit unquestioningly to authority?
About 99% of all the guns sold are NOT used in the commission of a crime, and the 1% which are destined for use in crime are the guns most difficult to remove from society. So, we could remove 99% of the guns and still not have any reduction in gun crime.
Same could be said about removing knives from school — didn’t used to be uncommon for a teen to have a penknife or buck knife in his pocket, and nobody thought anything of it. When schools banned possession of anything with an edge, the students least likely to assault anybody were the ones most likely to comply with the new rules, but did disarming the boy scouts actually make school any safer?
Mu Toby • July 30, 2007 8:34 PM
The most troublesome quote in the article:
Banning cloth backpacks also doesn’t unduly invade his privacy because “you shouldn’t have to be hiding something in school anyway,” Corliss said.
sigh
David (Toronto) • July 31, 2007 6:31 AM
I wonder if this makes it more likely that kids carrying valuable items in their see through backpack will be robbed for those valuables. Will these robberies occur inside the school, probably not.
In one stroke they’ve offloaded the financial liability for this measure and offloaded crime as well.
Why don’t people think things through?
Edward • August 1, 2007 9:40 AM
How about just not selling lethal weapons to people who don’t have a compelling reason to own own them?
Former child • August 1, 2007 3:02 PM
Let’s be serious here. There are only a few other places that try so hard to keep out weapons and drugs. At the top of the list are prisons. Why does anyone expect students to respond differently than prisoners when they are treated the same?
sambo • August 11, 2007 3:18 PM
“I’ve never seen school security that was prepared to handle anything worse than a 3rd grader with sharp scissors.”
My kids’ school has armed combat-unit veterans as security guards. They’re ready for anything.
John • August 13, 2007 4:38 PM
“How about just not selling lethal weapons to people who don’t have a compelling reason to own own them?”
Like a hardcover book? Or a pencil? high-healed shoes? Heck even the ID’s students are required to carry can be dangerous if used properly. And there’s always a fist, foot, or elbow if you can’t find anything else to use.
I think I’ve said this before, but a weapon is far more of a state of mind, than an object, and many of the most common things in life fall into the ‘dual-use’ category. Banning ‘weapons’ doesn’t help, and to paraphrase a wise person ‘if we can’t keep weapons out of maximum security prisons, how can we hope to keep them out of schools’?
Al Jones • August 16, 2007 8:23 PM
“My kids’ school has armed combat-unit veterans as security guards. ”
How many school books does it cost to pay for armed combat-unit veterans as security guards?
Joe Salvo • August 25, 2007 2:06 PM
I was quoted in the article above and I am out there as the kid waving the flag for everyone else, although I’m not the only one. Here’s what I have to say:
These backpacks are, like, many people have said before, just “theatre security.” It is the easiest way for school officials to make themselves look good because it’s a free ride for them. They don’t have to pay for these bags, and, no, SCHOOL OFFICIALS DON’T HAVE TO WEAR THEM (which seems pretty damn strange to me considering that a school coach, bus driver, and school board candidate were all just recently convicted of soliciting sex to students). They sit at their board meetings puffing themselves up with “Hey, look, we’re protecting your children” while creating a false sense of security throughout the district.
For the issue of privacy, yes, this isn’t as bad as what they could be doing, but still. This won’t solve the problem at all. Even our school principal admitted that students can hide just about anything in clothes, wallets, purses, books, folders, or any other opaque object in the bag. But now all of our personal objects will be visible for everyone to see. Imagine this: You’re at the airport, and they make an announcement over the intercom that starting now, they won’t let you board your plane if your luggage wasn’t see-through. There would be a public outcry! And adding insult to injury, the staff will not have to wear them. Hypocrites.
These bags also allow anyone to see student valuables like wallets, cell phones, iPods, jewelry, calculators, etc. There is already a theft problem at Wissahickon, and this new mandate will send it skyrocketing. Our principal said that first-off, we shouldn’t have cell phones in school. What? If they were really concerned about my safety, they would understand that if there ever WAS a school shooting, that my mom would want to know that I was alive and well. He said iPods are okay to have in school, though. Good priorities, Wiss!
One thing that no one has mentioned is that this all fell into place because of a school safety report issued by our district attorney, Bruce Castor (more like Castro). He suggests school uniforms, clear backpacks, unnanounced locker searches, guards patrolling the halls, enforced entry and exit doors, etc. I read it and was in disbelief. I thought I had mixed up the school safety report with our local county jail’s safety report. But, no, I hadn’t. It’s a sad state of affairs. But what really got me inflamed was that when I looked at the members on the council who wrote the report, they were all policemen! You would think…now stay with me here, because this is some tricky reasoning…you would think that, in a SCHOOL SAFETY REPORT, they would have the school superintendant, principal, teachers, school staff, and maybe some students and parents, right? They’re the ones running the school, and they’re the ones facing these problems out drug use and violence. But NO! Apparently, it makes more sense to hire a whole bunch of cops to mandate that students aren’t allowed to wear baggy clothes or even certain colors of clothes in school.
Can anyone say…ridiculous?
FreeNast • September 3, 2007 2:45 AM
Once again we take away responsibility of ones actions from the child and parent and pass it on to the state.
Get off the government welfare. The more we want the Gov. to take care of us the less freedom we will have.
Take care of yourself
Anonymous • September 18, 2007 11:00 AM
At my school we aren’t allowed to even have backpacks and are just trying to petition to get see-through and mesh ones.
Kinsey • September 18, 2007 11:11 AM
My school is stupid, they have bag checks yet they wont let us have backpacks! Most of the girls here carry bags just as big and not mesh or seethrough but all they carry is make-up! I think carrying school supplies is more important then how you look.>.<+
Chelsea • September 18, 2007 11:11 AM
There are tons of more dangerous schools than ours who are allowed cloth backpacks. We get our purses, instrument cases, and gym bags checked, but it’s too much effort to check regular bookbags.
Oh, yes. I’m going to go and put a huge gun in my flute case. rolls eyes It’s a big pain to get my case checked when I haven’t done anything wrong.
Chelsea CCHS.
Kinsey • September 18, 2007 11:12 AM
FREE THE BACKPACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chelsea • September 18, 2007 11:14 AM
FREE THE BACKPACKS!!! (we’re at the same school) waves backpack around FREEDOM!!!
Derek Fletcher • September 20, 2007 6:13 PM
back when my dad went to school he could carie his rifel in his truck and not any one cared but when I tried to do the same I was called to the office and was escoreted out to my truck to take my rifel apart but they didn’t care that I had knifes spread acros the dash
Jagadeesh Venugopal • October 1, 2007 5:52 PM
Obviously they haven’t considered the impact of their edict. What happens if they now catch someone smuggling contraband in their clothing?
Natalie • November 2, 2007 8:21 PM
Many of you are really missing the point here and are unaware of how good of an idea this is. If you do some research, or had any idea what happened behind the scenes of a school system, you would be amazed at what actually happens.
Clear backpacks can surely aid in reducing the number of dangerous items brought into schools, out of schools, and trafficked in schools.
As for upsets about staff members not having these bags; do some research and compare the number of dangerous devices, drugs, etc. that students bring in/traffic vs. faculty.
A concerned High school student • November 29, 2007 1:52 PM
“Just save time. Issue two sets of books to every kid. One set stays at home, one set stays at school. Pens and pencils are issued by the school. You can only bring one spiral bound notebook into or out of school. There. Problem solved. Sure it will require a change of curriculum, but isn’t it worth it to protect the children?
Then just setup metal detectors at each entrance/exit and you’re golden.”
I agree, they took away our back packs at my school and expect us to be on time to all our classes when we have text books we have to store in our lockers because we have too many to carry around during the day. and if they want to unclutter the hallways they should just teach students how to walk through them, there’s still tons of conjestion.
My locker in on the top floor and so far this school year I have had no classes near it and they are slowly diminishing our hall passing time. at times I have no time to get from class to class if I have to go up to my locker. Just carrying around one notebook would be a very great help.
Also a smart student/teacher could turn anything into a weapon, so does it really matter if you take away backpacks to diminish the risk of students bringing in weapons, they could just use a pencile to stab someone.
gabbie • November 29, 2007 6:43 PM
yes it is a bad idea, but when you look at it, it will cost less and may not happen in all schools
Chelsea • February 19, 2008 8:58 AM
At least they get backpacks.
terri • August 28, 2009 10:29 AM
I love that they are providing me with a wonderful false sense of security. Along with the buzzer at the front door even though our office is 200 feet away… i’m sure the gunman will go to the office to check in before he starts taking hostages from the 1st grade rooms that are directly across from the door.—>smell that? it’s sarcasm.
sigh.
Shelby • March 11, 2010 6:12 AM
You guys are overlooking something huge.
I am from colorado and I know about Columbine. Those kids didn’t bring their guns to school in back packs.
Kids who do school shootings don’t bring guns to school in their backpacks and wait for the right moment. Usually those kids don’t show up to school that day, instead they wait till the time they want to shoot up the place and barge right in.
And see through back packs?
I’m sorry but those are unnecessary.
What’s that going to prevent?
I never had anything to hide in school but I never wanted anyone to see what all was in my bag.
My iPod was in there (we were allowed to bring them), last thing I wanted everyone to know was that I had an iPod in my backpack worth hundreds.
My tampons were usually in there and when I was younger I would have hated for everyone to know I was toting around tampons.
Like someone else said in here, people shouldn’t be focusing on banning all this stuff and focus more on the kind of people who do this kind of stuff.
Subscribe to comments on this entry
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.
Pat Cahalan • July 27, 2007 2:55 PM
See through trenchcoats are next.